Tag Archives: participation

Post navigation

Too often, debates on smart cities revolve around terms such as “Internet of things”, “big data”, and “sensors”. However, there is a growing realisation that truly smart cities take a more person-centric approach, which focuses on the needs of citizens and harnesses their skills, talents and experience.

Crowdsourcing is one approach that can help cities do just that. From Danish toy maker Lego to tech giant Amazon, organisations are using digital tools to gather views, opinions, data, and even money from citizens. Public sector institutions have also got involved, introducing projects that engage with citizens, as well as tap into external skills through events such as hackathons (where civic hackers come together to solve key city problems).

Already, there is a wide range of crowdsourcing initiatives across the world. Below I’ve highlighted some of the best.

Scottish Government

In 2015, the Scottish Government’s Open Data and Fisheries teams introduced Dialogue, a citizen engagement tool developed by Delib (a social enterprise based in the UK and Australia).

The Open Data team were in the process of creating an open data plan for public bodies. They felt that crowdsourcing could help them gain a greater understanding of the types and formats of datasets people would be interested in, and as such, posed a series of questions to citizens.

The Fisheries Team took to crowdsourcing to gather the views on a proposal to create a ‘kill licence’ and carcass tagging regime for salmon. As they knew this would be controversial, they wanted to gain a better understanding of the concerns in fishing communities, and to see if there were any better approaches.

Both teams learned a lot of useful lessons from the process. These included:

ensuring questions were as specific as possible so citizens could understand;

marketing projects to specific communities with an interest in the question raised;

MK: Smart – Milton Keynes’ wide ranging smart cities programme – has introduced an online platform known as Our MK to connect with citizens. This award-winning project supports people in playing a central role in urban innovation, from crowdsourcing initial ideas through to finding mentoring support and funding through their dedicated SpaceHive page.

The platform’s citizen ideas competition offers up to £5,000 worth of funding to turn ideas into reality. So far it’s generated over 100 ideas, with 13 projects being allocated funding. This includes the Go Breastfeeding MK App (an app which promotes the use of breastfeeding within Milton Keynes) and the gamification of Redways (which saw an app developed to encourage people to explore the Redways network – a series of shared use paths for cyclists and pedestrians.)

Madrid City Council

In 2016, Madrid City Council launched Decide Madrid. The platform played a key role in supporting the city’s participatory budgeting process, allowing citizens to propose, debate, and rank ideas submitted to the website. Once citizens had chosen their top proposals, city employees checked the ideas against viability criteria and a cost report was carried out. If the proposal failed to meet the criteria, a report was published explaining why it had been excluded.

Decide Madrid provided guidance of what was allowed and what was not (offline meetings were also used to explain the limitations of the scheme), to ensure that only valid proposals were checked. This ensured the initiative didn’t become too labour intensive.

In the 2016 Budget, €60 million was set aside. By the time the process had finished, citizens had debated over 5,000 initial ideas, with 225 projects being chosen for funding.

Reykjavik City Council

Better Reykjavik was introduced to provide a direct link for citizens to Reykjavik City Council. The online platform enables citizens to voice, debate and prioritise the issues that they believe will improve their city. For example, Icelandic school children have suggested the need for more field trips.

In 2010, the platform played an important role in Reykjavik’s city council elections, providing a space for all political parties to crowdsource ideas for their campaign. After the election, Jón Gnarr, former Mayor of Reykjavik, encouraged citizens to use the platform during coalition talks. Within a four week period (before and after the election), 40% of Reykjavik’s voters had used the platform and almost 2000 priorities had been created.

Overall, almost 60% of citizens have used the platform, and the city has spent approximately £1.7 million on developing projects sourced from citizens.

Final thoughts

Crowdsourcing is more than just creating a flashy website or app. It’s a process which requires strategic planning and investment. If you’re planning your own initiative, seeking out good practice and learning from the experience of others is a great place to start.

This article was based on the briefing ‘The crowdsourced city: engaging citizens in smart cities’. Idox Information Service members can access this briefing via our customer website.

A survey undertaken by YoungScot to accompany the Scottish Government’s Places, People and Planning consultation concluded that the majority of young people felt that they should be involved in planning in their local area and that their local councils should look at ways to support children and young people to do this.

The current Scottish Planning Bill contains a number of provisions that aim to do just that – including enhancing the engagement of children and young people in shaping their local areas through the statutory development plans, and the requirement for planning authorities to use methods that will secure the engagement of children and young people.

The right to participate

This focus upon children’s participation in the planning system can be viewed as part of a wider move towards the greater acknowledgement of children’s rights under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). The UNCRC sets out the fundamental rights of all children and young people across the world. It states that the best interests of the child must be a top priority in all decisions and actions that affect children. There are, therefore, many aspects that are directly relevant to the planning system.

“A child friendly city is the embodiment of the Convention on the Rights of the Child at the local level, which in practice means that children’s rights are reflected in policies, laws, programmes and budgets. In a child friendly city, children are active agents; their voices and opinions are taken into consideration and influence decision making processes.”

Four key principles of the UNCRC are considered to be particularly pertinent to the CFCI initiative:

Non-discrimination – a child-friendly city is friendly and inclusive for all children

Best interests – putting children first in all decisions that affect them

Every child’s right to life and maximum development – providing the optimal conditions for childhood, including their physical, mental, spiritual, moral, psychological and social development

Listening to children and developing their views – promoting children’s active participation as citizens and rights-holders, ensuring their freedom of expression

Awareness and understanding of children’s rights among planners

However, in her research on children’s role within the town planning system, Dr Jenny Wood found that there was little acknowledgement or understanding of children’s rights under the UNCRC. Indeed, planners commonly believed that the provision of schools, parks and designated play facilities were all that was required in order to meet children’s needs.

Dr Wood argues that if public spaces and the planning process are to become more inclusive, then planners need to develop a better understanding of children’s rights. In a separate blog, she sets out five key steps to help embed children’s rights in the everyday work of planners and other practitioners:

specific children’s rights training for planners

government guidance on, and suggested methods for, engagement with children and young people

the creation of a robust and routine feedback mechanism between planners and child participants

encouraging networking, collaboration, and skills exchange between planners, play workers, and youth workers

the collation of an accessible evidence base on children, young people and their relationship to, and use of, the built environment

Future directions

There are some wider signs of progress – including the introduction of Children’s Rights and Well-Being Impact Assessments (CRWIA), which are now required for all new policy developments in Scotland, and new measures that require specific public authorities in Scotland, including all local authorities and health boards, to report every three years on how they have progressed children’s rights as set out in the UNCRC.

The current reform of the planning system offers an ideal opportunity to further advance children’s rights by encouraging and supporting local planning authorities to involve children and young people in planning as part of their everyday practice.

By 2050, it is estimated that nearly 70% of the world’s population will live in urban areas. In the UK, this figure is expected to be closer to 90%. This demographic shift, along with population growth in general, means that more children than ever are growing up in urban environments.

This has a number of implications for the town planning system. Creating a ‘child-friendly’ environment requires much more than just ensuring there are enough parks and play spaces.

As well as having a fundamental human right to participate in decisions that affect them, there are clear links between children’s health, wellbeing and development and the quality of their surrounding environment. Particular areas of influence include:

housing quality

road safety

the walkability of an area

opportunities for cycling

play facilities

access to greenspace

local amenities such as libraries and community/leisure centres

environmental pollution

community safety/fear of crime

access to healthy food choices

One key way to address this is to involve children in the planning process. As well as helping to create safer, more suitable environments for children to grow up in, involving children in decisions about their local areas has a number of additional benefits. It helps to build social capital, helps children to form a bond with their home city, and fosters a feeling that they can help to make a change in the world they live in. For planners, involving children can help to provide them with a new perspective on how children use their environments, and highlights issues that adults may not recognise or fully understand – potentially leading to improved design.

Participation methods

Research published in 2011 found that children’s voices had been “notably absent from UK planning and regeneration policies throughout the past two decades”. Children’s participation in planning tended to be focused on services that were designed ‘for them’ rather than ‘with them’, and little attention was given to children’s roles in the wider regeneration agenda.

However, there are some examples of successful involvement. Methods that have been used successfully range from formal mechanisms such as youth councils, child-led surveys and data collection, to informal ones such as photography, computer-aided mapping, model building and role-play. Dr Jenny Wood reports that she had success with a delightfully low-tech method, where children were asked to annotate A3 OS maps with a range of stickers, post-it notes and pens, to highlight their likes, dislikes, routes to school and any other information they felt was important about their local area.

At the other end of the scale, some particularly innovative examples capitalise on recent technological advances. These include the use of mobile phone apps to make traffic reports (see Case Study 1 below), the use of Minecraft (see Case Study 2 below), mapping their local area (Children’s Tracks in Norway) and the use of the SoftGIS methodology in Finland.

Case Study: Traffic Agent, Norway

A new app-based initiative in Oslo, ‘Traffic Agent’, directly involves children in transport planning. It enables children to provide direct feedback on road safety, based on their own experiences. The app makes use of ‘gamification’ whereby users act as “secret agents” for the city, sending immediate reports on their route to school when they come across, for example, a difficult crossing on the street or an area of heavy traffic.

The project lead, Vibeke Rørholt, illustrates its impact: “I received a telephone call from the mother of a little boy who had reported some bushes that meant he couldn’t see when he was crossing the street. And two days later the bushes were cut. She phoned in saying he’s so happy that he could make this happen.”

Case study: Blockbuilders, England

Blockbuilders is an innovative method of involving communities, and children and young people in particular, in the town planning system.

Using the hugely popular game, Minecraft, the Blockbuilders team create a 3D representation of a local area. The model is then used as the basis for consultation with the wider community, and can be interacted with and played with to enable communities to help design and shape their local areas. Projects have included the development of Lewes Neighbourhood Plan, the development of a family-friendly park by Brighton and Hove City Council, and an interactive map of Brighton and Hove.

Common success factors for children’s effective participation

There is no one definition of ‘good’ or ‘effective’ participation practice – the most suitable method depends on the age of participants and the nature of the decision that they are being involved in. However, in their review of children and young people’s participation, the Ecorys project identified a number of common ‘success factors’ for children’s effective participation in planning and regeneration. These include:

Involving adults with knowledge and experience of young people’s participation

Utilising a range of diverse participation mechanisms

Understanding participation as a ‘whole’ process of learning and change

Openness and reciprocal learning between children and adults

An incremental and realistic approach to goal setting and developing trust/confidence

Visibility in the results

Embedding at different levels and spatial scales

Challenges

Despite the compelling arguments in favour of children’s participation in the planning system, a number of barriers exist.

There is a general lack of awareness of the purpose, benefits or skills required for facilitating young participation among planners. Children are often viewed as being incapable of engaging in a meaningful way, despite research concluding otherwise.

Children’s participation in planning is frequently still viewed as ‘special’, rather than as part of general community engagement processes. It tends to be focused specifically on children’s services, rather than the wider range of universal services, and takes the form of consultation, rather than proper involvement in every phase of the decision making process.

A number of political and structural barriers also limit children’s potential influence – such as competing interests within the planning system and the short timescales often required for decisions. This can mean that even when the intentions are there, planners themselves may have limited time or influence over the decision making process.

Future steps

However, these challenges are not insurmountable. As we have seen, through its influence on the design of the urban environment, the town planning system has a huge impact upon the wellbeing and development of children. By involving children in the design of their local environment, it can help create environments that support children to reach their fullest potential.

Children who are involved and interested in their local environment will hopefully grow up to become adults who are involved and interested in their local environment. The town planning system is in a unique position to help facilitate this. And as Enrique Penalosa, former mayor of Bogota, Colombia has said:

“If we can build a successful city for children, we will have a successful city for all people”.

Keen to make your city more child-friendly? Next month we look at the characteristics of child-friendly urban design.

“The most important factor in improving participation is persuading voters that the election (and the political process more generally) is relevant to them and that their vote matters. That is the responsibility of politicians – of all parties, and at all levels of governance – and, arguably, the media.” The Electoral Commission

Disengagement with mainstream politics, particularly among young people, is a common concern among politicians. But in an age of all things digital, and with the growth of social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook, there are undoubtedly more ways than ever to engage people with politics.

It seems that traditional election campaigns of door-to-door canvassing, local meetings and incessant letter box mailings are being surpassed by a new age of digital campaigning, with hashtags, retweets and ‘likes’ all a familiar occurrence.

But with a little over two weeks until voters across the UK go to the polls, has the electorate become more engaged?

Lack of engagement

Low voter turnout has been an increasing concern in the UK. Last year’s general election saw a 66.1% turnout – the largest in 18 years. However, this was still significantly lower than the highest ever turnout at a general election in 1950, which reached 83.9%.

It has been even worse for local and European elections, and during the first Police and Crime Commissioners election in 2012, turnout was just 15% – the lowest recorded level of participation in a peacetime non-local government election in the UK.

A general mistrust of politicians and the centralised model of governance in the UK is also apparent. And this is particularly the case among young people. Findings from the Citizenship Education Longitudinal Study showed that 80% of young adults reported very low levels of trust in politicians in the run up to the 2015 general election.

Despite this, a majority of young adults said they were either ‘very likely’ or ‘fairly likely’ to vote in the election and many were engaging in some kind of political activity – nearly 90% were members of a social networking site, and over half this group used social media to engage with political or civic material.

According to a recent report that examined the relationship between the media and the electorate in the 2015 general election, “engagement with young voters worked best where media brands met them on their own ‘turf’ – online, on social media, and particularly on Facebook”.

Role of social media

Social media platforms certainly offer new ways to encourage citizen engagement and provide a level of transparency otherwise unseen in political discourse.

A recent report from the Design Commission argues that social media networks, such as Facebook and Twitter, can dramatically reduce the perceived ‘barrier’ between the electorate and political decision-makers.

It points to the unprecedented voter turnout witnessed during the Scottish referendum (84% – last seen in the UK in the 1950’s) and notes that whilst it was a generation-defining decision, “it can be argued that effective social media usage engaged the populace in conversation and debate and encouraged democratic participation, especially in younger age groups”. The referendum generated 10 million interactions and there were more than 4 million tweets on the topic between August 1st and September 8th.

Similarly, a study of 16-19 year-olds who voted for the first time in the Scottish referendum highlighted that social media were generally useful tools for political communication and engagement, particularly amongst the younger generations. Reasons cited, included:

their ubiquity

their ease of use and accessibility

that they can give rise to a feeling of community and shared values

that they serve as an alternative information source to the ‘biased’ press and media.

An Ipsos Mori poll also found that a majority of Britons believe social media gives people a voice who would not normally take part in political debate and is breaking down the barriers between the electorate and politicians. And, again, it highlighted that social media has the potential to have an even greater impact on 18-24 year olds, a third of whom think social media will influence their vote.

Help or hindrance?

While many believe social media is a tool of empowerment and transparency, others argue that it does not help the political process by improving people’s understanding of political parties, or the issues, but rather leads to a ‘a trivialization of the electoral process’.

Ipsos Mori’s study found that people also recognised the disadvantages of social media, with most believing it is making debate more divisive and superficial.

It could be argued that inflammatory comments made on social media could stir up hostility and lead to aggravated debates, thereby detracting from serious political debate. Or that the use of slang can lead to confusion and ambiguity, potentially contributing to a lack of meaningful discussion.

There is also the issue of space constraints with some social media, such as the 140 character limit for Twitter, which can make it even more difficult for arguments to be conveyed in the way intended. And the accuracy of information provided should also be considered.

Final thoughts

Nevertheless, it is clear that social media does play a role in engaging people who may otherwise not participate in political debate.

However, what isn’t clear, as concluded by the report on the 2015 general election, is that “despite the millions of tweets, retweets, posts, likes, shares, and views, there is no evidence that social media played a decisive role either in boosting engagement and turnout, or in the election result.”

That is not to say that social media won’t play this role in future elections, if its growth continues and if those of the digital generation move into key political and media roles – #GE2020?

If you enjoyed reading this, you may also be interested in our previous blogs:

Delegates came from across Scotland to an event held by COSLA last month to discuss the issue. Bringing together council representatives and those from the third sector, private sector, and academia, the conference explored what action can be taken to advance the contribution of women to public life in Scotland.

Delegates were, at times, highly critical of the council environment for women, in particular in Scotland. Based on some of the personal anecdotes being presented by panellists and delegates, it is unsurprising that only 25% of councillors in Scotland are women, the lowest proportion in the UK.

The day’s events were tinged with a strong undertone of scepticism and frustration at the inaccessibility of council life to some women. Barriers include working hours, child care provision, work-life balance and the idea of merit, as well as the “archaic systems” in place in some political parties which do little to promote, let alone advance, the active participation of women in local politics in Scotland. There was also a lengthy discussion about the culture of council chambers, with the attitudes of some men within them being seen as less than encouraging – although this was robustly rebutted by some women (notably Scottish Labour leader, Kezia Dugdale), who emphasised the positive impact that men had had on their political development.

Willie Rennie, one of the session panellists, acknowledged his party’s poor record on female representation, which he called “embarrassing and shameful.” He set out plans to reform party structures to implement frameworks for elections which are similar to those used by other parties.

There was a long discussion during a panel session with female councillors from the COSLA Women’s Task Group about the possibility of setting up a forum in order to create a space for women in local government seeking advice and support. This was widely supported by conference delegates.

Other suggestions to increase accessibility and change perceptions around women in public life included:

promoting a cross party consensus on encouraging women candidates to stand in local and parliamentary elections;

creating a mentoring scheme to encourage more young women to participate and give them an opportunity to learn, but also potentially to help change the culture of others;

using negative comments to drive participation and improve the contribution of women, through a desire to enact real fundamental change in the current system;

remembering that it is not just in local authorities that women need to have more presence – it was stressed by a number of delegates that numerous public bodies should be encouraged either to attend events like this, or to host their own;

considering and using, if necessary, statutory measures to advance the role of women (this does not necessarily mean the use of quotas, although it was felt that there should be a robust discussion concerning women and quotas).

Building on positive steps

The day’s discussion highlighted that there are already a large number of women involved in public life in Scotland, but there are far more who leave it or are put off contributing because of the barriers which exist and the difficulties many women have in overcoming these barriers.

Nicola Sturgeon has already committed her party to promoting greater equality on the boards of public bodies through the introduction of quotas if the SNP wins in the Scottish Parliament election in May. It is clear that, while this is encouraging, much more needs to be done. Equalities issues are broader than gender – other groups are also seriously under-represented.

All political parties and public bodies need to seriously consider what steps need to be taken to achieve lasting, positive change.

Despite the longstanding and valued position in British society of sport, getting people of all ages involved in sport and physical activity has become increasingly challenging. While current UK guidelines for aerobic activity recommend that adults aged 19 and over should spend at least 150 minutes per week in moderately intensive physical activity, the latest statistics on physical activity from the British Heart Foundation indicate that:

Only 67% of men in England and Scotland report meeting recommended levels of physical activity, and only 59% in Northern Ireland and 37% in Wales;

Women are less active than men in all UK countries, with 58% reporting meeting recommended levels in Scotland, 55% in England, and 49% in Northern Ireland and 23% in Wales;

Physical activity levels vary by household income; in England in 2012, 76% of men in the highest income quintile reached recommended levels, compared to 55% of men in the lowest income quintile.

The implications of inactivity

Low levels of physical activity not only have health implications, but also economic – in the UK, inactivity has been estimated to cost the NHS £1.1billion (Allender, 2007) with indirect costs to society bringing this cost to a total of £8.2billion.

In addition, the briefing profiles successful interventions at the community level, such as Let’s Get Fizzical, a physical activity programme for young people delivered by StreetGames in collaboration with Birmingham City Council. International examples of good practice are also highlighted, including the Active Healthy Kids Canada programme and the North Karelia Project in Finland.

361 days since Scotland went to the polls in the 2014 independence referendum, and in the context of the current political climate regarding displaced peoples and refugees, BEMIS hosted a conference on Monday in Glasgow to consider citizenship and identity in the UK.

Delegates came from across Scotland (and Wales) with representatives from a diverse range of community groups, local government, and universities to discuss Scottish identity and citizenship, and how it applies to them.

Key values of inclusion

The morning began with an address by Dr Rami Ousta, the CEO of BEMIS, one of the conference organisers. Dr Ousta spoke at length about the key values which he believes are inherent within Scotland. Values, he said, which make Scotland a fair and inclusive place for ethnic minorities to live. He said he believed that identity and belonging should not hinge on terminology but that this is something which he felt some individuals had become “constrained by”.

Dr Ousta emphasised the importance of active citizenship – stating that “minority groups should engage to compliment government efforts” and that the role of the current generation was to “create and promote discussion for the benefit of future generations.”

What it is to be a citizen

Then the politicians took the floor, with Marco Biagi MSP beginning, followed by Leanne Wood. Mr Biagi (Minister for Local Government and Community Empowerment) opened by stating that he felt that September 2014 to September 2015 had been a massive year for citizenship and identity in Scotland. People in Scotland were, as he put it “engaging as citizens like never before.” The independence referendum was, he thought, the representation of the civil understanding of what it is to be Scottish.

He highlighted his role as an example of the Scottish government’s focus on delivering a change in how they approached what he called the “democratic promotion agenda”. He highlighted upcoming citizen’s forum events and emphasised the necessity for Scotland’s institutions to be representative if they are to engage individuals from across different communities in political participation in Scotland.

Leanne Wood (Leader of Plaid Cymru) also highlighted the referendum as a key moment in the democratic realisation of citizenship in Scotland. She focussed on the idea of nationhood and nation building, touching on similarities and differences in the experiences and contexts in Scotland and those in Wales. She emphasised the ability of Scots to promote a more egalitarian agenda, as Scotland provides a more distant space from the rise of the far right which has been seen in England and Wales. She spoke of “journeys to civic nationalism“, both in Scotland and in Wales.

Leanne Wood AM (L) and Marco Biagi MSP (R). Rebecca Jackson 2015

The view from the floor

Following a brief Q&A, delegates highlighted the importance of the conference to the current refugee crisis. There was a discussion around the application of Scottish government proposals from a local authority perspective – how could local authorities use the power they have to promote this inclusive agenda ‘on the ground’.

The speakers were challenged on their generalisation of the issue of integrating more migrant communities in Scotland and that the way they had described it was very different to the realities being seen on the ground. There were references to hate crime and isolated communities within Glasgow which were issues which some delegates felt were not being addressed by the Scottish government.

There was also a question regarding the participation of minority groups in local councils to which Mr Biagi responded by saying that local authorities “still have a long way to go to be representative of women, minority groups and disabled people” but stressed that “community planning, which could define an inclusive and participative citizenship, is vital and is something the Scottish government are working towards.”

A move away from paternalism

The morning was rounded off by a foray into the world of academia. Firstly Dr John McKendrick from Glasgow Caledonian University spoke about child poverty in Scotland, the recent EIS document on Child Poverty and how in order to generate a sense of citizenship within Scotland, Scotland’s problems should be tackled cooperatively.

He reiterated the point raised earlier, that Scotland “is not as egalitarian as the public debate would have us believe.” But he suggested that the referendum could act as a turning point to create a fairer Scotland and offered an opportunity to rethink how society integrates and acknowledges different viewpoints.

Finally, Professor James Mitchell from the University of Edinburgh, spoke of the influence of the independence referendum in relation to the Christie Report, which he was involved in drafting. He spoke of using public policy as a way to engage people, rejecting the traditional paternalistic approach of policy makers who did things for people, not with them.

He discussed how government, both central and local, should use the appetite for participation which the referendum created in Scotland and translate this into everyday decision-making processes. Summarising, he stressed that in his opinion, the question of citizenship is important because communities are now key to leading the public policy agenda in Scotland.

Final thoughts

Although interesting and useful in generating discussion (the follow- on interactive workshop sessions in particular), the discussions appeared to emphasise what many people in the room already knew. When questioned on practical tangible differences that could be made, delegates were reminded by the speakers that the Scottish Government has no power over asylum and immigration, as those matters remain reserved; and that changing cultural values to help integrate communities would be a long and slow process.

What the conference did do was raise the issue of citizenship up the agenda again in Scotland and highlight to those who were there the improvements which have been made. It also emphasised the wide spectrum of people willing and eager to cooperate and interact to make Scotland a fairer, more equal and more enjoyable place to live, and that is, as one speaker summarised, a positive sign for the future.

The BEMIS “Diversity, citizenship and identity in the UK – 2015 and beyond” conference was held in Glasgow City Chambers on 14 September 2015.

Who was speaking?

Dr Rami Ousta, CEO BEMIS Scotland

Marco Biagi MSP, Minister for Local Government and Community Empowerment

Leanne Wood AM, Leader of Plaid Cymru, Member of the National Assembly for Wales, South Wales Central Region

The Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill was finally passed by the Scottish Parliament after a debate and vote late on Wednesday evening. In this article we look at the background to the Bill, the reforms that it proposes and its potential to strengthen community planning.

Background

The Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill was introduced in the Scottish Parliament on 11th June 2014, and the Stage 2 debate took place in March 2015. The Bill has its origins in the 2011 Scottish National Party election manifesto (where it was referred to as the Community Empowerment and Renewal Bill). This was followed by two Scottish Government consultations. The Bill is part of a broader programme for public service reform in Scotland which was introduced by the Commission on the Future Delivery of Public Services, which stressed the need to ensure that public services are built around people and communities.

The Bill sets out reforms in areas including community planning, community right to buy land, involving communities in the delivery of public services and the acquisition of public assets by communities.

Community planning provisions

The Bill gives community planning partnerships (CPPs) a statutory basis and extends the range of public bodies which are defined as community planning partners beyond those set out in the 2003 Local Government in Scotland Act, which introduced community planning. It sets out a legal obligation for local authorities and their partners to participate with each other and to participate with any community bodies which the partnership considers likely to be able to contribute to community planning.

There is a particular focus on involving organisations which represent disadvantaged groups, and CPPs are required to “act with a view to reducing inequalities of outcome which result from socio-economic disadvantage unless the partnership considers that it would be inappropriate to do so.”

CPPs are also required to prepare and publish a local outcomes improvement plan and to review whether they are making progress in achieving these outcomes. They must also publish progress reports for each reporting year.

Will the reforms strengthen community planning?

A number of reports have been critical of community planning since its inception, in particular with respect to its involvement of, and impact on, local communities. The Christie Commission highlighted “variations in the effectiveness of community planning partnerships,” while an Audit Scotland report found that barriers such as the lack of a clear accountability framework have prevented CPPs from operating as intended. It argued that all community planning partners need to work together to address these barriers.

A SPICe briefing on the Bill noted that “putting community planning on a statutory basis, and requiring participation from all partners, not just local authorities, has long been considered a way in which community planning could be improved.” The general duty on all partners to participate, and specific responsibilities conferred on some partners to ensure the efficient and effective operation of the partnerships, may help to address some of the previous shortcomings of CPPs.

However, the Local Government and Regeneration Committee does not consider that a statutory duty is sufficient to ensure the effective participation of all public bodies in community planning. Some stakeholders have also highlighted issues with how outcomes will be selected and prioritised by CPPs, while others have voiced concerns that the process will remain top down, and will not give communities much of an opportunity to contribute to determining outcomes.

While the proposed reforms place clear responsibilities on CPPs to involve relevant bodies in community planning, and contain provisions which aim to address previous problems with CPPs, we will need to see how they are applied in practice in order to determine whether they will bring about improvements in community planning, and ultimately lead to improved outcomes for communities.

In the run up to the UK general election, we’ve been looking at all things democratic on our blog. A quick read of some of our key articles shows just how much interest there is currently in making policy-making and government more accessible and open. It’s not easy though –the majority of the social, economic and environmental problems facing the country could be described as ‘wicked’ – cutting across boundaries (geographic and service) and requiring significant change (behavioural or organisational).

On the positive side, there are creative digital and social approaches developing – aimed at increasing engagement and stimulating discussion. Sites like ShouldWe are taking a crowd-sourced approach to examining public policy debates and evidence. Democracy Club is also using crowdsourcing, this time to capture candidate information and create and archive of election leaflets. And this election has seen a huge increase in public scrutiny of manifestos, speeches and politician’s campaigning, with sites such as Fact Check , Full Fact and The Conversation’s Election FactCheck examining the evidence behind the rhetoric.

In terms of reaching those groups who have tended to be disengaged from politics, online campaigns such as #EmilyMatters , Operation Black Vote and Bite the Ballot have been using social media to counter the argument that politics is irrelevant to everyday life.

Without a commitment to open and ongoing discussion about the choices our governments (local and national) are making – and the implications of these for our society – large sections of the population will remain excluded from the democratic process.

When the Information Service we deliver was set up over forty years ago, one of its founding aims was to make policy (and the evidence informing it) more accessible to practitioners and frontline staff in the public sector. We like to think we play our own small part in informing and empowering those who want to understand social policy in the UK, and if necessary challenge the status quo.

Catch up with these resources on democracy and elections from our team:

Sometimes it feels like every city in the world is now claiming to be ‘smart’. Our research team regularly add new reports on the topic to our database. And with a policy agenda riding on the back of a multi-billion pound global industry, the positivist rhetoric around smart cities can seem overwhelming.

We’ve blogged before about the disconnect between what surveys suggest the public values in terms of quality of life in urban areas, and what smart cities are investing in. And last week I attended a conference in Glasgow ‘Designing smart cities: opportunities and regulatory challenges’ which refreshingly brought together a multi-disciplinary audience to look at smart cities in a more critical light.

The conference was rich and wide-ranging – too broad for me to try and summarise the discussions. Instead here are some reflections on the challenges which need to be explored.

Every smart city is a surveillance city

Look in any smart city prospectus or funding announcement and you’ll find mention of how data will be ‘managed’, ‘captured’, ‘monitored’, ‘shared’, ‘analysed’, ‘aggregated’, ‘interrogated’ etc. And this is inevitably presented as a benign activity happening for the common good, improving efficiency, saving money and making life better.

As David Murakami Wood pointed out at the conference however, this means that every smart city is by necessity a surveillance city – even if policymakers and stakeholders are reluctant to admit this.

Public debate is failing to keep up with the pace of change

Even for someone who takes a keen interest in urbanism and the built environment, any description of smart cities can risk leaving you feeling like a techno-illiterate dinosaur. It’s clear that there is also a huge amount of hype around the construction (or retrofitting) of smart cities – with vested interests keen to promote a positive message.

Do we really understand the possibilities being opened up when we embed technology in our urban infrastructure? And more importantly, what are the ethical questions raised around sharing and exploiting data? The pace of the development and rollout of new technologies within our urban environments seems to be running ahead of the desirable cycle of reflection and critique.

An interesting point was also made about language – and whether experts, technologists and policymakers need to adjust their use of language and jargon, in order for discussion about smart cities to be inclusive. Ubicomp … augmented reality … the Internet of Things … even the Cloud – how can the public give informed consent to participating in the smart city if the language used obscures and obfuscates what is happening with their data?

Where can we have a voice in the data city?

Following on from this point, cities are not ends in themselves – to be successful they must serve the interests and needs of the people who live, work and visit them. An interesting strand of the conference discussion considered what a bottom-up approach to smart cities would look like.

Alison Powell highlighted that there’s been a shift from seeing people as citizens to treating them as ‘citizen consumers’ – I’d add that within the built environment, this goes hand-in-hand with the commercialisation and privatisation of public space – and this has profound implications around questions of inclusion/exclusion. And also where power and decision-making sits – and who is profiting.

Although some general examples of community participation projects were mentioned during the conference, these didn’t seem to address the question of how ‘people’ can engage with smart cities. Not as problems to be managed or controlled – or as passive suppliers of data to sensors – but as creative and active participants.

Conclusion

I left the conference wondering where society is heading and how we, the Knowledge Exchange, can support our members in local government and the third sector to understand the extensive opportunities and implications of smart cities. We see a key part of our mission to be horizon scanning – and our briefings for members focus on drawing together analysis, emerging evidence and case studies.

Not all towns or cities have the resources, investment or desire to lead the way in technological innovation. But the challenge of bridging the gap between professionals and their vision and understanding of smart cities, and people in communities, is a universal one.

As William Gibson observed: “The future is already here … it’s just not very evenly distributed”.

The Idox Information Service can give you access to a wealth of further information on smart cities or public participation. To find out more on how to become a member, contact us.

Our reading list prepared for last autumn’s Annual UK-Ireland Planning Research Conference looks at some recent literature on smart cities.

The Idox Group is the leading applications provider to UK local government for core functions relating to land, people and property, such as its market leading planning systems. Over 90% of UK local authorities are now customers. Idox provides public sector organisations with tools to manage information and knowledge, documents, content, business processes and workflow as well as connecting directly with the citizen via the web.